Rocket Dog Rescue has filed a civil lawsuit against Shannon Miranda, the owner of Miranda’s Rescue, alleging negligence, fraud, animal cruelty and the intentional killing of three dogs the nonprofit says it entrusted to his care earlier this year.
Read more European nations vow FIFA World Cup boycott over Infantino private equity plan as opposition spreads
The complaint, filed July 27 in Humboldt County Superior Court, marks the first civil action tied to the sprawling criminal investigation into Miranda’s rural facility, where sheriff’s deputies recovered more than 100 animal carcasses.
RELATED: Dogs sent to Miranda’s Rescue return to Bay Area shelters as investigation continues
The suit seeks monetary and punitive damages, according to court filings, and names Miranda along with “Does 1–100,” a legal placeholder for anyone who may have participated in or contributed to the alleged misconduct.
Rocket Dog Rescue, an Alameda‑based nonprofit, alleges that Miranda misrepresented the condition, placement, and fate of dogs transferred to his facility, including Paddington, Paulie, and Scooby, all three of whom were later identified among the remains recovered by the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office during the investigation.
On May 1, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office searched the Miranda’s Rescue property. During that search, investigators retrieved multiple guns, ammo, and electronic devices from the property. Through the investigation into allegations of animal cruelty and fraud, it has been determined that hundreds of dogs were transferred or turned over to Miranda’s Rescue by private citizens and animal shelters.
A second warrant, executed on June 23, authorized the excavation of suspected burial sites across the property. During the three-day search, investigators discovered 117 intact canine remains, 21 canine skulls, and 661 dog collars, along with electronics, business records, financial records, and firearms.
“This case concerns the defendant Shannon Miranda and his fraudulent misrepresentations to plaintiff Rocket Dog Rescue along with many reputable rescue organizations throughout California, which relied on the Defendant’s representations that the dogs had been trained and adopted in the living homes only to later learn those representations were false,” the summons states. “Defendant MIRANDA had previously informed Plaintiff ROCKET DOG RESCUE that Paddington, Paulie, and Scooby had been successfully adopted.”
Rocket Dog Rescue says it transferred the three dogs to Miranda on March 1, paying a fee for each animal with the understanding that they would be housed at his rural property, evaluated, and placed in adoptive homes. The nonprofit alleges Miranda promised that if euthanasia ever became necessary, he would notify the organization first.
Rocket Dog Rescue provided deputies with microchip numbers and transfer records to help identify dogs. Investigators later confirmed that Paddington, Paulie and Scooby, all believed by the nonprofit to have been adopted, were among the deceased.
When confronted by Rocket Dog Rescue, Miranda’s Rescue owner Shannon Miranda “expressed surprise” and suggested the dogs may have been returned to his facility after adoption, according to the filing. He also claimed someone else at the rescue may have euthanized or killed the dogs without notifying Rocket Dog Rescue. The nonprofit alleges those explanations were false.
Read more Silicon Valley donors poured $194 million into California politics. Now comes the wealth tax fight
“Plaintiff subsequently learned that those dogs had never been adopted and had instead remained in Defendant Miranda’s custody until their deaths,” the complaint states.
Allegations
The lawsuit outlines four causes of action.
Miranda is accused of negligence and animal cruelty in the complaint: “Defendant negligently, carelessly, recklessly and unlawfully failed to exercise reasonable care in the custody, supervision and protection of Paddington, Polly and Scooby while they were entrusted to his care, resulting in their deaths,” the complaint states.
He is accused of negligence that led to the deaths of the three dogs: “On or between March 1 and May 1, 2026, Defendant Miranda violated California Penal Code section 597(a) in that he/she/it/they maliciously and intentionally killed plaintiff Rocket Dog Rescue dogs.”
A third allegation states he committed fraud and intentionally misrepresented what Miranda’s Rescue does.
“Defendant Miranda represented to Plaintiff that dogs and trusted to his care would be housed, evaluated, rehabilitated as appropriate, and placed into adoptive homes. Defendant Miranda further represented that euthanasia was ever being considered; Plaintiff would be first notified and given the opportunity to retrieve its dogs,” the suit goes further to state. “Those representations were false. Paddington, Paulie, and Scooby had not been adopted as defendant Miranda representative. Instead, they remained in defendant’s custody until their deaths. Defendant Miranda knew his representations were false when he made them.”
Finally, he is accused of “trespass to chattels,” an allegation that means he interfered with someone else’s personal property and caused harm.
“In committing the act alleged herein, Defendant acted with oppression, fraud, and malice and with conscious disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and property interest. Defendant Miranda’s conduct was intentional, despicable, and carried out with fraud and malice, thereby entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in the amount according to proof at trial,” the lawsuit states.
The civil suit adds a new dimension to the criminal investigation that began in April looking into Miranda’s Rescue, which has drawn scrutiny from animal‑welfare groups statewide. The complaint does not specify an exact dollar amount but seeks a trial by jury for monetary and punitive remedies exceeding $35,000, including general damages, economic losses, replacement value for destroyed property, costs of suit, and punitive damages.
What’s next?
The case was filed July 27, with the civil cover sheet dated July 24. It has been assigned to Humboldt County Superior Court’s Delay Reduction Program, which requires parties to follow accelerated case‑management timelines. A case management conference is scheduled for Jan. 25, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom Four. Miranda has 30 days from service of the summons to file a response. Failure to do so could result in a default judgment.
Read more Photos: Storied Bay Area property — once a church — listed for $3.9 million
Maranda Vargas can be reached at 707-441-0504
About the Author
